Boy Scouts of America do an about-face, and it’s about time

On learning Monday that the Irving-based Boy Scouts of America might finally end its outdated and pointlessly cruel policy of discriminating against gay people, I was tempted to execute a little woo-hoo victory dance, right here in my messy newsroom cubicle.

After all, it was only a few weeks ago that I finally quit getting blistering mail over a column I wrote way back in July critical of the policy.

I only recently threw out the fat folder of these messages I had been keeping — it kept setting other stuff on my desk on fire — so maybe I can be forgiven for a little ha-ha-on-you moment. I’m only human.

But if the organization chooses at long last to drop its ban and join modern civilization, it won’t be my victory.

It won’t belong to activists and critics who have spoken up and called on the Scouts to wise up.

It belongs to families who want nothing more than to participate in the Scouting tradition, only to have the door slammed in their faces.

It belongs to teenagers who have had to choose between coming out and achieving the hard-won rank of Eagle Scout.

It belongs to moms who have been told they can’t be den mothers.

It belongs to gay adults who have been left out because there are still people in this country too mean and backward to grasp the self-evident fact that homosexuality and pedophilia share exactly the same similarities as heterosexuality and pedophilia.

This would be progress, but they’re not looking to go all rainbow-pride over at Scout HQ.

A statement released Monday confirms only that “the BSA is discussing removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation … members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.”

In other words, the national organization’s official position would go from an outright ban on gay participation to standing mute on what local Scouting units choose to do.

There will, no doubt, still be those who choose to apply a sexual-orientation test to whether a person is qualified to go hiking or paddle a canoe or toast a marshmallow on a stick. But it would be an improvement.

There’s no telling for certain what prompted the BSA to re-examine the policy after it announced so unequivocally in July that it would remain in place, but it’s possible to make a couple of educated guesses.

Guess No. 1: money.

The scouts are a private organization, but they get a fair amount of support from big corporations — companies whose own policies have quietly evolved over the years to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Online campaigns, such as the one launched last fall by an Eagle Scout named Zach Wahls, have called on those companies to suspend their support.

“Corporate America gets it better than most,” Wahls said in November. “Policies that discriminate aren’t simply wrong, they’re bad for business and they’re hurting the Scouting community.”

Under pressure from Wahls’ Scouts for Equality and similar groups, such big-name players as Intel and UPS have suspended their financial contributions to the BSA.

Guess No. 2: publicity.

A minor storm erupted late last week when the supervising council of Scout Pack 442 in Cloverly, Md., dropped a nondiscrimination statement from its website.

The explanation for the statement’s removal was considerably more pointed than the statement itself could ever have been:

“Due to pressure from the National Capital Area Council of BSA, Pack 442 was forced to remove its Non-Discrimination statement in order to keep our Charter (set to expire Jan. 31). This Non-Discrimination statement, previously posted here, welcomed ALL families.”

If councils across the country start making war on one another over whether to enforce or ignore the ban, it will only mean a lot more dreadful publicity for an organization still stung by the hard truth that it tried for decades to cover up the presence of not imaginary, but actual, child molesters in its ranks.

If the BSA really performs this overdue about-face, I’ll want to think it’s about more than money and bad press — that it’s about families and what’s good for kids.

To post a comment, log into your chosen social network and then add your comment below. Your comments are subject to our Terms of Service and the privacy policy and terms of service of your social network. If you do not want to comment with a social network, please consider writing a letter to the editor.